My "complaint" about VAR and specifically the WC final: If we are going to use VAR "to make correct calls" (which we are) then use it throughout the game: So - Griezman dives for a foul, and the ref calls for a free kick...VAR should whisper in his ear - "Griezman dove for that foul"...so then the ref should make the right call and give Griezman a yellow - resulting in no goal for France... If we are not going to use VAR (which we are) then the handball penalty never gets called - and again France does not score. Together, those two calls do exactly what we (at least I) don't want these games to become, and that is they make the referee the center of attention for the result of the game... Again, when does the PL start?
Thanks for clearing that up for me. (I agree with the call in this case. It could be a goalscoring opportunity denied by the hand intervention, so you've got to go with the penalty call, i think.) But How in the name of Christ does all that explain the no call in the Serbia game? Were they visiting the bathroom at that moment? Snorting a line? wtf Oh - and one more thing - i feel the saboteur in me needs to get into this reffing game if I can tell the ref at every corner that he should stop the game because I SAW an infringement....
I will say it again. I can see a pressing need for a consideration of rule changes like VAR, the Back-pass, the offside, etc... I cannot see any (=NONE) pressing need for the rule change to kick the ball up in the air in the event of a miniscule further balancing of technical fairness NOR of changing the traditional way of kicking off forward into a position inside the centre circle. No need - only whim to take away a generally unnecessary rule that was doing little harm in its place. One final point comes to mind about the kick-off - that being that the circle is as large as it is (I presume) due to there being a need for an exclusion zone of players to allow for one player to safely play possession to the 2nd player inside. With this no longer necessary the circle should be reduced by half or so..... This would be enough room for any player just kicking/passing a ball wherever he chooses. It would look horrible, but who cares .... it's huge size is no longer necessary
that's the whole point, isn't it. They are afraid of doing just that because people are already at vomit level over the amount of stoppages. And, as I said at the very beginning of all this - they know full well what the backlash result will be if they start using it to right all wrongs.......
I don't think that example is in any way a clear and obvious miss by the ref, and the VAR booth must have felt the same way. This is a bad argument because those two things you've lumped together are not equivalent, at all. So your objection over the forward-pass is irrelevant. You're welcome to your opinion, as anyone is, but this is logically fallacious thinking.
I don't agree. It comes down to the situation you think we are in. (That we either must act or be seen to act.) If there was a general willingness to conform to a standard of removing all unnecessary rules, I'd agree with you. But there isn't, as far as I know. It's just people like you liking the idea and people like me not caring for the idea. These are not burning issues. For example, I never even heard of a proposal to change that particular rule before it happened. There is no imperative to either a). change a rule that may be achieving nothing but doing no harm, or b). change a rule that might very minimally affect some technical concept of fairness. Viewed as such the two examples are not equivalent, but both of those things that I have lumped together as you say are far closer to each other (in terms of minimally measurable consequences) than they are to any of the bigger rule changes we both agree on as reasonably debatable. The ratio of the usefulness of either change to each other compared to any of the other examples (VAR, the back-pass, Offside,) is huge.
That's like saying you want to flavor a big pot of soup, so you pour in a cup of salt. What's wrong with that? Salt flavors things, right? Let's add a whole bunch and add a whole lot of flavor!
I'm sure you do, but I've tried explaining why I don't think it's a foul and you don't seem to care, so an explanation from them probably won't help you that much, either. It's not going to be much different an explanation, I don't think... there simply aren't enough factors for there to be wildly divergent answers to the question. The nature of the rulebook dictates that things lean toward the binary. This is incorrect, not all opinions are made equal. You can like or dislike what you will, you don't need my approval, but when you start making analogies as if they make a logical, sensible point you can only either fail or succeed. That has nothing to do with how you feel, but rather how you are using or misusing logical principles and rhetoric. And you are misusing them. I could go and count up the logical fallacies if you like. That's because this is such an obvious change due to the pointlessness of the rule that it amounts to little more than housekeeping. You probably aren't ever informed of what time the ref took a shit before the match, but because it's so extremely irrelevant to the actual match it doesn't matter. I mean, I could easily invent some idiotic hypothetical edge case -- beginning with the way a ref wipes his ass and ending with that particular method of cleanliness impacting one particular match -- but the existence of just such a hypothetical doesn't mean we now need a rule about how referees use the bathroom. No one claimed there is such an imperative. No one argued differently... but it doesn't matter, because that's not relevant. 2 small decisions/changes aren't equally valid or invalid just because they are both comparably "small" and thus, in your opinion, "similar". One small change makes sense while another does not, based entirely on the reason/logic behind the change and nothing else. You not seeing the logic behind taking away a pointless rule does not remove that logic... nor is a similarly "small" rulechange made logical when you invent some tortured, bizarre rationality for your personally-invented, hypothetical edge case that apples to such a change.
Wrongly disallowed goal just reversed in the Spanish supercup, due to VAR. Took 30-40 seconds. Sevilla probably go on and lose this match... but if they hold on to this 1-0 and beat Barca and add another trophy to the cabinet, it’s directly because of VAR. Another good decision added to the pile!
It's been a long time since we were blathering back and forth on this. I never read your previous answers below back in June or whenever it was because I figured the thing was so near dead... and we both understood the positions of the other - BUT....but a couple of these points you made are not really answers or refutations of the reasoning which asks the question. Both of these opinions are valid. I just happen to think that mine has more gravitas than yours. If one accepts that there is a psychological component to the watching, then (absent an actual need to change the rule) there is no real argument against that the rule should have been left alone.
Yeah, I know you think that... but you're wrong. We've covered this extensively, and you've mostly failed to acknowledge it, but those nonsense arguments of yours -- "why don't they play the game with a grapefruit??" or whatever -- may be sufficient for you to dismiss lots of different proposed changes, but that doesn't mean they are relevant and the reason is they aren't made in good faith. And you've admitted as much, multiple times at this point! Which should be obvious considering you're a person that demonstrably and, also by your own admission, doesn't understand the rules of VAR, cannot be bothered to read/understand them, yet wants to participate in a discussion about them... Meanwhile VAR, warts and all, has piled up many, many good reversals of poor calls in multiple top-level competitions. Since bad calls in the EPL cannot be changed like they should be, and because the people in charge insist on staying in the stone age for at least a little longer, all I can do is cross my fingers and hope the bad calls don't end up directly costing Liverpool points YET AGAIN this season. We'll have to just sit back and see what happens, I guess. How thrilling! The "human element".. will another Merseyside derby, in which Everton do almost literally nothing for the entire match, end in a draw solely because of a terrible ref decision that cannot be overturned?!? Tune in to find out!!! Oh boy. What fun.
btw/ all these months and a billion posts later - I decided to re-read how this all got started... I still disagree fundamentally with this Idea DCC .... What would inevitable happen is that the (lets say it's two calls per game) calls by the coaches would get held till near the end where they could try to use them for corner-kick box scuffles ... This resulting in a farcically different last 5 - 10 mins of the game with all four calls being introduced by the two coaches....
granted - almost all of my arguments about VAR in this thread were not made in good faith in terms of countering an argument which is trying to eradicate the iniquities of the rules not being called properly by the 4 grown men watching the game .... and I have stated many times that I am willing to put up with the four - 4 grown men - and take the good with the bad. The arguments were driven from that position and I would state for the record that my view there is probably a minority one, and yours a majority one.....
That proved to be a very good question, mate...... (so months later) An obvious bad call did cost us the champions league! (I was still unduly burdened mentally by the VAR goings on in the WC Final...)
In the event that would become an issue, you could modify the rules to limit that type of thing occurring. The issue with this debate is those in favor of are are willing accept some imperfections in the system; however, believe overall the use of VAR, however it is implemented, increases the likelihood that teams aren't going to get screwed by bad calls. Those who are against it hold up this unattainable standard of perfection and are willing to live with the current system of which leaves team vulnerable to getting screwed by to poor referees.
Thank you for acknowledging this, but it's been painfully obvious for months now. It's my own fault for wanting to have the last word. I see now going back over the thread how the piles of paragraphs are annoying, and in service of what? Nothing, really. You weren't putting forward a real argument about VAR, didn't read the rules about VAR, and I'm sure still haven't! Regardless, I won't be drawn into this again. Now this can be able actual discussion of VAR decisions instead of us multi-posting each other back and forth. BL still using VAR right? That will be worth paying attention to this weekend, possibly. I don't know which other leagues are using it but it's worth a google search. Precisely. You either want the games called better overall, and are willing to sacrifice whatever is lost by adding -- at the absolute maximum -- a few extra minutes in stoppage time for each match... or you don't. I don't like stoppages, but I want the calls made correctly. It's that simple.
Looks like BL, La Liga, Serie A all using VAR for 18/19. That was just a wiki search, correct me if I'm wrong.
VAR has been a long-time coming and it's a shame it wasn't implemented earlier. Hopefully in EPL by 2019.
It's not even the stoppages that I find the most egregious thing, frankly - it's the removal/post-poning of the moment of excitement. Football has always been about the decisions of fallible humans. Most of its excitement is in the moment, whether we like it or not. The human psyche could prolong that moment while someone looked at a linesman, etc. But waiting through the VAR ritual is just too much for this particular spectator. I did not enjoy what I was watching at the World Cup. Oh,and one final word - in its short lifespan this VAR has already managed to fvck up a World Cup final.... brilliant..... What you are all blindly missing is that things like the Hand of God and the Thierry Henry handball, by virtue of their actual existence in our memory, make the world a more thrilling place than had they been disallowed and dismissed at the time of occurrence. They'd be gone. Rock On VAR......